this is a rough *unofficial* transcript of the majority of last night's
broadcast. programme repeated sunday 5pm or yo can hear it here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/seedsoftrouble.shtml
and you can post comments here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?state=threads&board=radio4.science&
Keen GE-supporter and UK regulator, Dr Phil Dale of the John Innes
Centre already has

***

Seeds of Trouble

Richard Hollingham, Narrator (N)

[N] GM, genetically modified crops, promised a bright new dawn for agriculture.
And for a while everything was going the industryís way. But then things
started to go wrong. Wobbly shareholders, angry activists and sceptical
consumers. But the industry began to fight back, and many have felt the
brunt, from entire countries to individual scientists like this one.

[Ignacio Chapela] "I was so drained, I was emotionally very shocked
and drained. I donít think anything like that had ever happened to me.
I felt totally shaken and I just stayed in a state of shock for hours after
that. The whole evening I just couldnít talk."

[N] One night in September 2001, Dr Ignacio Chapela, associate professor
from the university of California at Berkeley, was driven in a taxi to
this remote area of Mexico City. Dr Chapela had just completed a study
which showed that native varieties of maize grown here in Mexico had been
contaminated with DNA from genetically modified crops. Heíd agreed to meet
with Fernando Ortiz Monasterio, a senior official with the Mexican government.
But at night, this area was an unlikely place for anything official. Although
the meeting took place in the large [?concrete and?] steel and glass building
behind me, this really isnít a particularly pleasant area. The building
itself overlooks a makeshift dump around the size of 2 football pitches,
strewn with rubble, bags of rubbish and old mattresses. Graffiti covers
almost every available wall and fence. Thereís a pack of wild dogs picking
through the undergrowth. Heaven knows what theyíll find here.

[N] Dr Chapela knew his research was controversial and possibly embarrassing
for the government here, but he wasnít expecting to feel in danger.

[Chapela] When we walked in the building was really empty. We climb
up in the elevator to the 12th floor and we come out into this deserted
office space. There is this long corridor that is pretty gloomy and there
is this little light that comes on at the other end from the side in the
corridor, and this is where this official is sitting, in a makeshift office.
The desk is a door taken off its hinges and put on cardboard boxes. There
is no phone, there is a maid who is instructed to prepare coffee and leave.
We are left, the three of us, together. I was sat next to the wall and
the aide was sitting blocking me from the door. And then this officer who
is in charge still today of the Commission on Biosafety and Genetically
Modified Organisms, the most important Mexican official on these matters,
he let me know that I would be very mistaken in publishing the results
of this research. He makes it clear that I am the one who is creating the
problem. And this is all done in very very aggressive language. And then
he said, I look forward to the development of the biotech industry in Mexico
and itís going to happen. There is only one hurdle. And that hurdle is
you.

[N] Dr Chapela then tells how he was offered the opportunity to conduct
some secret research. He would work for 6 weeks at a luxury resort alongside
4 scientists from the biotechnology industry. Dr Chapela says, to make
his life easier, he was even told the results of the study in advance.
It would conclude that his original research was wrong. Dr Chapela declined
the offer.

[Chapela] Then he instructed the aide to show me the offices. These
are just totally empty office spaces. At some point I was left alone in
one of the rooms and I was looking out of the window and I saw that this
was a building surrounded by just dumpsters. And I just think, Oh my God,
they could just push me out of the window here, so I did think this could
be the reason why I was being shown these spaces. And yet nothing happened.

[Fernando Monasterio] I am Fernando Ortiz Monasterio, executive secretary
of [Ö] which is the Commission on Biosafety and Genetically Modified Organisms
of the federal government of Mexico.

[N] Dr Chapela claims he was driven out to a building on the edge of
town, that he had a meeting with you on the 12th floor in a ramshackle
office and he feared for his life.

[FM] I am not aware of the fact. The simple offices and premises that
we use are the offices in which we give the best service and I am not aware
of that fact.

[N] He claims you intimidated him and that he really was genuinely scared.

[FM] Quite surprised. Here we have very respect for people and I shall
talk to him, itís good to know.

[N] Did you have a meeting with him?

[FM] Yes.

[N] And as far as you are concerned, what happened at that meeting,
what was discussed?

[FM] The issues of the presence of maize, the importance of publishing,
that what we were doing is research, and that when we have the results
from our own researchers, we will share with him.

[N] So it wasnít your intention to intimidate him?

[FM] No.

[N] Did the meeting take place as he describes in an almost empty building
on the 12th floor in a desolate part of town?

[FM] No, on the 5th floor of our offices, which is an office of the
ministry of health, in the southern part of town where we work, yes.

[N] Did he have any reason to be fearful of publishing his research
in Mexican [sic]?

[FM] No. Oh no. Not at all.

[N] Fernando Ortiz Monasterio wasnít the only Mexican official who was
keen to chat with Dr Chapela that autumn of 2001. The then deputy agriculture
minister, Victor Manuel Villalobos, also made his feelings known. In a
strongly worded letter, which Iíve seen, Dr Chapela was warned that heíd
be held personally responsible for any damage to the whole of Mexicoís
agriculture and economy resulting from the publication of the study. It
was all getting rather melodramatic. But why go to so much trouble over
just one piece of research? Could it be pressure from Mexicoís friendly
neighbour to the north? In this programme weíll try to discover whoís influencing
whom in the debate on GM and whoís pulling what strings.

The United States has embraced biotechnology on a massive scale. Around
a third of US maize, or corn as itís known, is GM, and around 80% of soyabeans.
Thatís tens of millions of acres grown each year. And itís stated US policy
to promote this technology abroad. On the official government website,
the US undersecretary for agricultural affairs says, "US foreign policy
is devoted to a longer-term struggle to gain world acceptance of agricultural
biotechnology. So whatís the extent of this struggle? Time for a trip to
the US Embassy, to meet the councillor for agriculture, William Brandt.

The American Embassy covers a whole block of the city in Mexico; we
have to get through security which involves lots of men with gunsÖ. [attempts
to reach Brandt by phone] What a palaver. And during that thereís a man
with a very large submachine gun standing next to me.

[W Brandt] Our policy is boy, the more countries we can get on board
who can stand up and say biotechnology done responsibly is good, itís good
for us, itís good for our country, our economy, the more countries we can
get up and stand with us, itís to our advantage.

[N] Mexico has had a ban on planting GM maize since 1998. And thereís
been a certain amount of opposition to agricultural biotechnology in the
Mexican Congress. Those opinions are ones the Americans are keen to change.

[WB] With regards to Congress thatís a process of providing information,
making sure they have all the facts before they write legislation, and
to that extent we meet constantly with Congress, we also meet closely with
groups like Agrobio and [Commission headed by Fernando Monasterio].

[N] Thatís the commission headed by Fernando Ortiz Monasterio.

[WB] We have brought those interested in Congress up to the United States
to meet with our health policy experts and our people in public policy.
They spent a great deal of time with our American Medical Association learning
about what the AMA thought about the use and consumption of biotechnology.

[N] Youíll be aware of the Ignacio Chapela research. There are allegations
that there was pressure from this embassy to put pressure on Chapela not
to publish that research.

[WB] I can categorically state that there was not any. We have not made
any pressure on Mexico with regard to the Chapela study.

[N] All expenses paid trips to meet important people in Washington may
help, but the US doesnít really need to bother. Mexico already imports
6 million tonnes of maize from the States every year, and around a third
of that is GM. Itís somewhat confusing because though there is a moratorium
on planting GM crops, you can still import them to eat. And as Mexico needs
maize to feed its people, it has little choice. But the sheer quantity
imported is a considerable dent to the countryís national pride. It canít
compete with the huge subsidised farms of the American cornbelt, and has
become a net importer of its staple food. Here in Mexico, maize is everything:
from food to culture, itís almost a religion.

[Frank Contreras] Corn is tattooed on the Mexican historic memory, you
can go to pyramids and see images of corn. For many people who live in
the Mexican countryside, corn is their life.

[N] Frank Contreras covers Mexico for American Public Service Radio.

[FC] This is where corn was developed by human beings 10,000 yrs ago.
Now that the US has control of this key crop, itís almost as if I said,
here, let me pull my nose off and give it to you, and now my face is yours.
This very thing that made me me, is now in your control. So itís this deep
tremendous source of frustration for the Mexican people.

[N] ÖWhen it comes to maize, the government in Mexico would very much
like the country to be self-sufficient. Which probably means adopting the
latest technology from the US. [GMW: Surely some mistake????] But cultivating
GM maize here could have serious repercussions. Mexico is after all the
plantís centre of origin. Itís the place it was first cultivated and therefore
the natural seedbank. Alarm bells started ringing when Dr Chapela found
traces of modified genes in native maize grown in the southern hills of
Oaxaca. And while some in the government wanted this information suppressed,
others have been trying to verify it. The president of the National Ecology
Institute commissioned two separate studies from respected laboratories
to look for GM material in Oaxacan corn. They found contamination in 6%
of the samples. Even those passionate for biotech accept the findings are
probably right.

[Jose Luiz Solero{?}] These studies, the only thing they do, is to identify
the presence of transgenes. Period. But who has the information of the
actual impact of that presence? Nobody.

[N] Dr Jose Luiz Solero [?]. Not a comment you would expect from the
director of Agrobio, Mexicoís pro-GM lobbying organisation. Funded by the
biggest biotechnology companies like Syngenta and Monsanto, heíd like studies
into the implications of Dr Chapelaís research, the effects of GM technology
on the environment, health and the livelihoods of farmers. So why isnít
someone doing them? Because, says Dr Solero, thereís no political will.
And no wonder. Research suggesting adverse effects on the environment,
biodiversity or the lives of farmers would all but kill off the prospects
of growing GM maize, and pro-biotech interests got to the heart of Mexicoís
government, up to the president, Vicente Fox, himself.

[unknown person] The president is in favour of biotechnology mainly
because he is a farmer, or was a farmer, then he was president of one of
the leading companies of the food industry, Coca Cola. So he knows the
value chain of food processing very well. His brother has a seed producing
facility and even a small company called Biotechnology 2000, so they know
biotechnology. They are aware of the benefits etc.

[Ryan Zinn?] One of President Foxís major campaign contributors was
a man by the name of Alfonso [Romo?] who is president and owner of Gruppo
[?] the largest biotechnology corporation in Mexico.

[N] Ryan Zinn is a campaigner for Global Exchange, an organisation concerned
with the rights of indigenous peopleÖ he told me that when it comes to
GM, the Mexican government is anything but independent.

[RZ] Government officials play a dual role. On one hand they work for
the government and on the other act as advisors to corporations like Monsanto
and Gruppo [?].

[N] So from what Iíve heard here in Mexico, itís likely that opponents
of GM will lose their battle. In fact there is already a gaping hole in
the ban on GM crops. It allows for what they call semi-commercialisation,
although how you grow a semi-crop is unclear. There are thousands of acres
of GM soyabeans being cultivated in Mexico and itís likely the governmentís
already made up its mind. Itís my guess that embarrassing findings such
as Chapelaís will be quietly ignored.

But Ignacio Chapelaís problems didnít end in Mexico. He faced his greatest
critics from, of all scientists, his own colleagues, here at the university
of BerkeleyÖ. From his office here, associate professor Chapela submitted
his results to Nature for publication. It was peer reviewed by 3 scientists
and eventually published. Within days, a letter was circulating at Berkeley
condemning the results as unfounded. Mike Freeling was one of the signatories.

What was your reaction when you first saw that paper in Nature?

[Freeling] A student of mine, Nick Kaplinsky, brought the paper to me
and told me it was some of the worst science heíd ever seen in his life.
The paper used a technique called PCR, polymerase chain reaction, and those
of us who use this technique a lot, we know what artefacts look like. We
know which sequences always come up but the authors had made some conclusion
based on them.

[N] Prof Freeling accepts that Dr Chapela was right in claiming he found
GM maize growing Mexico, but he passionately argues with the paperís second
conclusion, which suggests the engineered genes are unstable, and fragments
move around the maize genome. Of course, scientific disagreements arenít
uncommon, and even Dr Chapelaís supporters acknowledge problems with this
second part of the research. But disagreements donít usually become so
public, or so personal. Prof Lawrence Bush followed events from his office
at Michigan State University.

[L Bush] One of the surprising things about the reaction to Chapelaís
article in Nature was the vociferous and overwhelming disagreement that
it conjured up. It was out of all proportion to the claims that were being
made. In most instances in the sciences, if one writes a paper that is
seen as seriously flawed, one does one of two things. Either one produces
some research that demonstrates how flawed that paper was, or one simply
ignores it. An awful lot of work gets published that is flawed; itís just
simply ignored.

[N] Within hours of publication, websites had detailed breakdowns of
flaws in the research, flaws in the paper, and flaws in Chapela. Some of
the comments published on biotech industry web forums were from real scientists.
Others were from people who hid behind anonymous email addresses. One of
these has since been traced to an employee of Monsanto. A couple even seem
to have had access to information which wasnít in the public domain. The
protests culminated in letters published in the journal Nature. Those selected
for publication were signed by past and present professors and graduate
students from Berkeley, Dr Chapelaís colleagues. But the signatories had
more in common than just that. They have all benefited from a 25 million
dollar grant from the biotechnology company Novartis. When the deal was
signed in 1998, Dr Chapela had been extremely vocal in his opposition to
it. So could this be the real reason why his paper got such a pasting?
Prof Freeling again.

[Freeling] Itís true that Ignacio Chapela was very much against that,
and thatís because it wasnít a department matter, it was an entire college
matter, and heís in my college. I vaguely knew that Prof Chapela was against
this, but thatís approximately how much I cared.

[N] Maybe not then. Even so, the deal with Novartis, now part of Syngenta,
was and is unique. Itís the first time a whole public university department
has signed up with one company. For the scientists, it means they get extra
funding. For the company, first refusal on any patents. Even if the research
had been publicly funded.

It was so controversial the California Senate held a special hearing.
Sen Tom Haydon called the deal, "a usurpation of democracy by the biotech
industry". What worries many of the opponents of the arrangement is that
the company has a say in all the research the department undertakes, wherever
the funding comes from. And critics need to watch out. Thereís a lot at
stake when the industry doesnít like your work.

For the record, Dr Chapelaís paper has not been retracted, and remains
part of the accepted body of knowledge.

So can a publicly funded scientist rise above commercial pressures when
they are taking the big business dollar? Prof Nick Stennick[?] advises
the US government on scientific integrity, and heís certainly worried about
corporate influence on public knowledge.

[NS] When a researcher works in an area and the researcher gets funding
from that area, very often they shape a viewpoint or they have a viewpoint
that is consistent with what their industrial sponsors or their government
sponsors or so on think. There are some demonstrated examples of possible
biases in the biomedical industries and particularly in the area of drug
company funding, where there have been some studies that have tried to
show, are there differences in the way that results are reported depending
on whether there is or isnít drug company funding, and the answer is yes,
people who get drug company funding tend to look on certain medicines more
favourably than people who arenít getting it. And thatís what weíre worried
about.

[N] Maybe itís easier for Americans to trust their government; after
all, they didnít have Mad Cow disease or foot and mouth. At least 70% of
processed foods in the US contain genetically modified ingredients, but
you wouldnít know it from the label. Here in my kitchen in Michigan my
breakfast cereal has a full list of ingredients, vitamins and so on, but
no mention of GMÖ [missed a bit] but contains GM ingredients. A series
of focus groups carried out by the US government suggested that few consumers
knew that they were eating GM ingredients, and when told they were, wanted
them to be labeled. But all attempts to get labeling laws approved here
have met with intense opposition from the government, farmers, and the
biotech industry. Efforts to get bills through Congress have quickly faltered.
But last autumn, two women from the Northwest city of Portland, Oregon
thought theyíd take on the system. Donna Harris and Kate Lord gathered
the right number of signatures to add measure 27 to the November election
ballot. As well as voting for their reps in Congress, people in Oregon
also vote to label GM food. So next stop, Portland, Oregon. Ö

[N] Donna, what was your motivation?

[Donna] It was when my baby was born and I started calling the 800 numbers
on the back of the formula, baby cereal, baby food, Iíd ask does your product
contain GE ingredients, and theyíd say, maybe, maybe not. If it does, itís
an insignificant amount. I was really shocked that baby formula, they wouldnít
know what was in it; to me itís really important to know whatís in the
food Iím feeding my children and to have a choice at the supermarket.

[Kate] My [motivation] was slightly different. Iíd been working with
the cooperative movement for 20 yrs with farmers and then here at the grocery
store, and the coop movement pioneered all kinds of consumer rights issues
that not only fit with my personal sense of, letís find a mainstream sensible
answerÖ it was also within the philosophy and context of the cooperative
movement which was about putting power back in the hands of ordinary working
people.

[N] Is there a danger that you are perceived as a couple of green anarchists
who are just going out to cause trouble?

[N] Every morning a handful of campaigners were standing at busy road
junctions with placards reading "Honk for Yes on 27" or "Honk for Labels
on GM Food". And things were going well for Donna and Kate, working out
of a makeshift office with a total budget of around 150,000 dollars; the
polls were on their side; it looked like labeling in Oregon would happen.
UntilÖ

[Voice from broadcast ad] Measure 27. The more you know about it, the
less youíll like it. It is a badly written labeling law that will do nothing
to protect public health and safety. [Womanís voice] The last thing we
need is more government red tape, more bureaucracy. [Manís voice] Join
me in voting No on 27. [Woman] Join Oregon farmers in voting No on 27.

[N] With a budget of more than 5 million dollars, one and a half million
from Monsanto alone, the Coalition against the Costly Labeling Law tapped
into what Americans fear most: a rise in taxes.

[Voice from broadcast ad] Measure 27 would also increase our state budget
and would cost taxpayers over 100 million dollars.

[N] Strangely, the adverts didnít refer to genetically modified, biotechnology,
or in fact anything to do with food. Just cost. And it soon became clear
that the authors of Measure 27 hadnít spent enough time on the wording.
They called for tougher regulations than the EU, were unclear whether restaurants
would have to label their menus, and sketchy about what it would cost the
consumer.

[JG] If someone has a bias towards "I donít want any genetic engineering",
they can buy organic food. This is more about scaring people into buying
organic foods by the organic industry. This is about market share.

[N] The figure thatís come up in the campaign, Coalition against the
Costly Labeling Law, 550 dollars per family per year. How do you break
that down? Itís just a little label on a little packet.

[JG] Itís not the cost of the ink. What it is, is the paperwork that
goes with it, and the man hours you have to put in. So the farmer is going
to have to track, as that ingredient goes to a silo, the silo is going
to have to have that tracking, they send it to a wholesaler, and then the
retailer gets the product, and by the time you do all those pieces we are
looking at 550 dollars per family to do all this.

[N] The pro-labeling campaigners lost. But theyíve not given up. And
next time theyíll be a little more wary of the opposition.

The biotech industry is a powerful enemy to reckon with. The GM companies
have their lobby groups in Washington and their friends in government,
and when youíre the US, you can take on the world. For the Land of the
Free, freedom to trade is the no. 1 priority. And of course when youíre
the most powerful nation on earth, you can decide what that means. Certainly
a definition which seems to accommodate a doubling of US farm subsidies.

Other nations are also feeling the pressure. And that includes Britain
and our European neighbours. In Brussels last October hundreds of people
demonstrated against GM by pushing supermarket trolleys to the EU headquarters.
Because of its moratorium on new biotech crops and stringent labeling requirements,
when it comes to GM, the European Union is seen as biotechís public enemy
no. 1. Because European consumers wonít buy the stuff, the US has been
losing around 200 million dollars a year in maize exports alone. Tony Blair
has made speeches in favour of biotechnology and itís been suggested that
Britain could act as a go-between, bridging the gap between Europe and
the US. Thatís what I was keen to talk to the environment minister Michael
Meacher about, but despite 3 weeksí worth of calls and detailed emails,
he seemed unable to find the time.

[author of book Lords of Harvest points out that GM crops are patented
and thatís why companies can make money from them; that these companies
are based in the North and that they will hold all the cards where food
is concerned; Greenpeace argues that environmental problems are inseparable
from economics in present climate.]

[Hugh Grant of Monsanto]Ö. If you talk to the scientists in St Louis
they believed 15 years ago that by working on this stuff, things that would
make pesticides go away and things that had a chance to make farming more
sustainable, they believed that when they were successful, people would
lift them up on their shoulders and run around the room. There was a certain
amazement and disappointment 2 or 3 years ago when they finally cracked
the code, only to find that they became the most unpopular people on the
planet.

[N] [at Monsanto headquarters] signs lead off to the various rooms.
The Renaissance Room, Mystic RoomÖ the receptionist quipped that I might
come out brainwashed. I think she was joking. Next to her desk a copy of
the Monsanto pledge hangs from a scroll. This is the result of the makeover
the companyís undertaken in the last 18 months. The document details the
companyís commitments to the world under the categories, dialogue, transparency,
sharing, benefits and respect. In the last section, the consumer is specifically
mentioned. But if they do respect the consumer, why are they so opposed
to labeling? They donated one and a half million dollars to fight measure
27 in Oregon.

[Hugh Grant] The regulatory environment is different on both sides of
the Atlantic. The American approach would say, label the stuff thatís different.
Biotech isnít different. European approach is, label absolutely everything.
If you took your approach to its logical conclusion, the label would be
the size of a telephone book. And the conclusions last year in the EU were,
these foods from a safety point of view werenít equivalent, they were more
safe than the traditionally produced foods because theyíve been studied
so thoroughly. [EH???] So this is a discussion that will run and run.

[N] And the argument will keep running because when it comes to biotech,
thereís a lot of money at stake. Itís just at the moment, GM foods havenít
quite netted the industry the money it had hoped. Many biotech startup
companies have folded. Even the big players like Monsanto arenít performing
too well. To make it, they need to develop new products, new markets, and
minimise opposition. So can we learn to stop worrying and love GM? Should
we? In the next programme, the cornbelt farmers who love biotech, and those
who are turning against it. What are the benefits of GM? Iíll also be finding
out about the next generation of crops and what Monsanto are up to inside
their glowing building.